# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-07-26 22:17:12 -0300:
> --- Roman Neuhauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu:
> > But maybe I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make.
> > To make things a bit clearer: what is it that you find so disturbing
> > or surprising in the current PostgreSQL behavior? Why did you expect
> > it reusing the same process, and what benefits do you expect (or
> > preferably, have experimentally gained) from the alternative?
>
> The surprise is:
>
> Oracle - MTS - Multi-Threaded-Server - MTS allows many user processes
> to share very few server processes. Without MTS, each user process
> requires its own dedicated server process; a new server process is
> created for each client requesting a connection. A dedicated server
> process remains associated to the user process for the remainder of
> the connection. With MTS many user processes connect to a dispatcher
> process. The dispatcher routes client requests to the next available
> shared server process. The advantage of MTS is that system overhead is
> reduced, so the number of users that can be supported is increased.
I came to PostgreSQL from MySQL, which is multithreaded, and found
PostgreSQL absolutely UNsurprising in this aspect. There's quite
a few populare programs that behave similarly.
> Contrasting with this in PostgreSQL a new process is forked just to
> connect to another database. The PostgreSQL behavior seems similar to
> old Oracle versions.
So what? Is this a troll?
--
How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb?
You don't know, man. You don't KNOW.
Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
